Honoring the Unwelcome

Northeast Thing (NET) is an annual retreat held in the Pocono Mountains in Pennsylvania for followers of the various branches of Germanic Polytheism, also known as Heathenry, to get together from all over the northeast United States to share knowledge, engage in ritual, and create lasting friendships. The volunteer planning committee has, to its credit, been able to keep the event running through hardships like the CoViD-19 pandemic. However, this has not been without several lapses in decision making, both professional and theological, that have alienated many members of the community

 People attending NET agree to a code of conduct based on frith. Frith is essentially an agreement of peace within a community, in which all members agree to avoid harming others physically, mentally, or spiritually. The issue with frith is that while physical and mental damage are fairly easy to define, spiritual damage is an elusive idea. Many heathen groups have argued that because all people are connected through a web of wyrd, that the private actions of one person in a group can negatively affect the spiritual health of everyone else in that group. This can lead to an unintentional orthodoxy in a religion that many argue has no orthodoxic beliefs. 

The debate over orthopraxy (correct practices) and orthodoxy (correct beliefs) has plagued modern Germanic polytheism for decades. Many assume that because there is no central religious authority handing out edicts that Heathenry has no orthodoxy, but while it is true that all of Heathenry has no prescriptive beliefs, each group has the potential to create them, either officially or socially. For example, many inclusive heathen groups believe that there is no racial component to being able to interact with the gods of Northern Europe. Folkish beliefs are therefore against this orthodox belief, and are heretical. This example also illustrates that orthodoxy need not be a dirty word. Without this orthodox belief, our inclusive groups could fall victim to racism and white supremacy. 

Determining the difference between an orthopraxic belief and an orthodoxic one is sometimes difficult, but I would suggest that looking at these beliefs through the lens of harm is the way forward. If the banned action isn’t demonstrably harmful, then the reason for its exclusion is religious belief. If you ban animal sacrifice because it’s unnecessarily cruel, that’s orthopraxy. If you ban the worship of certain gods because of the effect on your luck, that’s orthodoxy.  By their actions, the planning committee is creating an orthodoxy at their event that makes heretics of a great swath of modern heathens.

Background

Northeast Thing grew out of a split with East Coast Thing, a similar event, several years back, but I began attending NET in 2022 with several other members of my local kindred. I had an amazing time. I met and made connections with people all over the region, and I looked forward to seeing them and making new memories every August. The event consists of three main parts; rituals to the gods, wights, and ancestors; presentations on topics related to our religion; and fun and games. 

The presentations and talks at NET are, for the most part, given by community members who’ve done some personal or professional research on their topic of choice and whose application has been approved by a subcommittee of the planning committee. This contrasts NET with other conferences who go looking for speakers and advertise based on their presentations. In my mind, neither approach to scheduling speakers is wrong, but NET’s approach does mean that presentations tend to not be a driving force for attendance, which is more focused on community building and ritual. 

The rituals themselves take place throughout the event at various times of day and each happens at a Vé; a personalised shrine maintained by a volunteer host for a specific deity where visitors can come, make offerings, and pray. Most of the Vés are deeply personal creations, where the host has channeled their connection to this deity in order to represent them lovingly. Some highlights I can remember were a Vé to Máni with a beautiful reflective bowl; one to Sága filled with books, writing materials, and places to relax; and an enclosed shrine to Hel in which worshippers entered a dark corridor and were asked to only leave messages for the dead as offerings. All these Vés were contained within the Véstead, a field that is consecrated as holy space at the beginning of the event. During the Main Ritual at the end of the event on Saturday evening, all of the offerings from all of the shrines are collected and burned, and each of the gods represented is honored. Until very recently, the process by which Vés are selected for inclusion was not formally laid out, and this was the cause of some recent strife. 

In the spring before the 2024 Northeast Thing a longtime member of the Heathen community, who has requested to not be named here, asked the volunteer in charge of organizing the Véstead for permission to set up a space separate from the other Vés for “Others.” Her request was for a simple space, “a bowl and some art,” where people could pray, meditate, and make offerings to beings who were traditionally kept outside of the circle of the gods. She told me that her reason for proposing a separate space, as opposed to space in the Véstead, was because she knew there were members of the community who would have a problem with it. It had been argued before that this would negatively affect the wyrd, a concept akin to luck or fate, of the community and of individuals who had to be near it, and so she thought to allow those people who were uncomfortable a chance to avoid the energies of such a space. The initial reason given for denial from the committee was that there wasn’t enough time before the event to debate and plan this, though subsequent discussions have met similar denials.   

 At the 2024 Thing, Kurt Hohmann and Paul Mercurio, who describe themselves as a Thorsman and Tyrsman respectively, gave a presentation examining Jormungandr and Fenrir in the lore and modern practice. The talk was the culmination of a year researching references from the lore, theological interpretations, and beliefs in related cultures. Their presentation examined several possible interpretations of the lore and provoked a great deal of discussion and fanned the flames of debate surrounding the inclusion of “Outsiders.” 

After Paul and Kurt’s talk, there was a round-table discussion, hosted by another community member, about outsiders in general. I truthfully don’t remember much from that discussion besides its side-effect of continued debate about inclusion. Before another discussion about Unverified Personal Gnosis (UPG), personal beliefs that someone holds due to lived experience, an audience member asked the host if she could go last and talk about her relationship to Fenrir. She told me that she gave the group a content warning and a chance to leave before she spoke. No one did. Discussion of an Outsider space was spreading outside of these workshops, which attracted the attention of some committee members.

El Sandifer gave the last talk of the week, titled “Heretical Heathenry,” an attempt by the host to provoke an examination of the ways that religions, even our own, create orthodoxy and heresy, not just through organization, but also social pressure. The presentation covered the ways in which heresy is created and dealt with by religious authorities, with examples mostly from the Catholic Church. El left plenty of time at the end of the talk to have the audience answer some discussion questions, but that was not the way things went. The very idea that Heathenry could have orthodoxy or heresy bothered two committee members in the audience in particular, one of whom was the president of NET, David Carron. Both went on to hijack the conversation by shouting down opposing opinions for nearly 30 minutes. The topic of discussion somehow shifted from examining our own possibly heretical beliefs to the reasons why “Outsiders” need to remain outside of our worship spaces. It was a deeply uncomfortable experience to be in that room, and I wasn’t even being yelled at.  

The fallout from this incident, which included complaints of harassment and a subsequent boycott of the event by a significant portion of attendees, was recently covered in an article by the Wild Hunt. I highly encourage you to read the write-up of Heretical Heathenry on El’s website. It’s important to understand that the pitfalls of orthodoxy and heresy do not only occur in religions with strict hierarchies and dogma. 

Advocacy for the inclusion of “Outsiders” continued and on April 30th, 2025, the NET Registrar sent out a poll to previous attendees to gauge interest in a space for these beings. On May 13th, they announced by email that the results of the poll showed that the community was “deeply divided” on the topic and that they had decided not to include a space for “Outsiders/Others” at NET 2025. I was immediately curious about the specific results of the poll, and despite NET not publishing them, I was able to get my hands on the poll answers, which received 78 total responses, a large number in an event that averages around 100 people. (Answers of “Yes” will include responses of “Other” which favored inclusion, and answers of “No” will include answers of “Other” which favored exclusion.) To the question “Would you be in favor of a space for “outsiders” existing at the event?”, 38 answered yes, 38 answered no, and 2 were unsure. To the question “Is this a space you would use?”, 18 answered yes, 54 answered no, and 6 were unsure. 

What did we learn from this? The opinions on inclusion were split evenly, and of those favoring inclusion, a little under half stated they would use the space, a number which constitutes around 20% of NET’s usual attendance. It is undoubtedly true that the community is divided in its opinions, but that does not mean that the committee must therefore favor the status quo. In truth, they had chosen a side before the poll, and kept to that side despite a perfect split. With such a division in the community, the reasonable response would favor inclusion, but that was not the response we received. 

On May 21st, I sent a letter to the NET Planning Committee, by way of their Registrar email address, in which I laid out what I felt were the details and scope of the mistake they had made in excluding these beings from worship spaces. I promised to them that I would not share the letter publicly, but that they were welcome to share it with anyone, public or private, so long as it was shared in its entirety. And then I waited. 

A few days later, I received a phone call from David Carron, and we set up a time the next day to talk. He began by letting me know that this was a personal call and that he was not representing NET, only himself. This was the first conversation he and I had ever had on religious topics and it lasted around 45 minutes. He asked me for my opinions and for how I defined an Outsider, to which I stated that I don’t, but that I could name some of the beings whose inclusion I was arguing for, namely Jormungandr and Fenrir, though I wasn’t opposed to the inclusion of more. He stated his reasoning for their continued exclusion, which essentially boils down to the idea that these beings are outside the Innangard of the gods because they are the enemies of the gods. He also stated that if NET decided to include a space for these beings, he would no longer attend. The conversation ended respectfully, each of us clearly not having been convinced by the other. 

Kurt, who had given the “Monsters” talk at NET 2024 and was now in charge of the Workshop Subcommittee for 2025, knew I had sent the letter and waited for it to be given to the Planning Committee. One week after it was sent, and several days after my conversation with Carron, we came to the conclusion that it was not going to be shared to the whole committee, and so Kurt shared it himself. While the letter met some support among committee members, there was significant opposition, especially from those on the Executive Board. I have compiled a list of several of their arguments, and will address them in turn. Since I was surprised by many of these arguments, I think it is important for the public to know of them, as they should have the chance to evaluate the core beliefs of those making the decisions at NET.

Mythic Literalism

It is my belief that most of the arguments made against Outsider inclusion are steeped in the fallacy of mythic infallibility and its subset, mythic literalism. Mythic infallibility is the belief or assumption, conscious or unconscious, that the myths that accompany our religion do not fail to communicate religious truths. If you’ve ever heard someone argue that something IS because the lore shows it, you’ve found someone who’s fallen into the trap of mythic infallibility. 

A deeper fallacy than infallibility is mythic literalism. This is the belief that the myths are true and literal accounts of the gods. A well known example of this is Young Earth Creationism. Both beliefs are undercut by the need for an infallible myth to have an infallible source. We know that the writers of the myths were humans and fallible, and even if they had been given divine inspiration, we know from experience that our gods are not infallible. In truth, there is no infallible source from which to derive an infallible myth.  

In heathen spaces, I have never encountered a full mythic literalist, but I have found that almost everyone has at least one belief that is grounded in a literal interpretation of myth. I have spoken to people who, on the one hand, take the story of the binding of Fenrir in its full poetic and historical context, and who interpret it through the lens of oppressed peoples, which is a valid way to look at mythology, while on the other hand label Tyr as a liar for his role in the binding. 

The first hurdle to overcoming literalism is to understand that the myths cannot be logically interpreted to have actually happened. The myths are poems written by people originally based on someone's UPG regarding their interactions and feelings about a god. They say more about the people who wrote them than about the gods themselves. When they wrote that Fenrir was monstrous and needed binding, it spoke to their worldview, their relationship to nature, and their beliefs about the purpose of the gods in protecting them from natural destruction. When they wrote that Tyr held his hand in Fenrir’s mouth to convince him it was safe to be bound, they were expressing ideas about sacrificing for community and honoring your oaths. They certainly didn’t believe Tyr was dishonorable for what he did, and while it’s perfectly valid to interpret his role in the myth that way through a modern lens and take life lessons from it, it’s literalism to apply that interpretation to a belief about Tyr’s actual nature.    

Innangard and Utangard

Innangard and Utangard, which come in various spellings, are a set of concepts that have existed for most of the history of the modern Germanic Polytheist revival. Innangard, meaning “within the walls,” was defined in the second edition of “Our Troth” as “the enclosed world of the human community, within which order, law and security are found, and which must be protected from the outside (by defense against intruders) and from the inside (by maintaining frith).” Utangard, meaning “outside the walls,” is defined as: “the wild and chaotic world, home of outlaws, strangers, giants and monsters.” This concept fits well into the dualistic framework present in many interpretations of European religions and philosophies; Good vs. Evil, Order vs. Chaos, Civilization vs. Barbarism. However, Dualism is a framework that we have mostly moved beyond in our understanding of the world, which is full of nuance. We inclusive heathens don’t tend to approach the world around us as a struggle between two opposing categories that encompass all viewpoints, so why do we apply it to our religion or even to our gods?

The concepts of Innangard and Utangard as defined above did not exist before the 20th century. According to Jackson Crawford, an expert on Old Norse language, when similar terms crop up in Old Norse writing, they refer to the penalties of arson in Norwegian and Icelandic law post-conversion. A fire set “innangarðs,” literally indoors, was more serious than one set “utangarðs,” outdoors. A fire that could be extinguished innangarðs was less serious than one that required extinguishing from utangarðs. When the lore names Utgarða-Loki, the “Utgarða” simply means that he lives outside the walls of Asgard and the descriptor is needed to distinguish him from Loki. 

The first time Innangard was used to refer to the concept as we know it was after the publication of Vor Folkeætt i Oldtiden by Danish scholar Vilhelm Grønbech. Grønbech wrote of his concept of “Middle-garth” and “Utgard,” and later writers switched Innangard for Middle-garth in order to reduce confusion with the mythological realm Midgard. Grønbech describes Middle-garth as “our folk,” who controlled it by virtue of having conquered it. To him, Middle-garth was safety and civilization, and all else was Utgard, the rabble. Utgard was monsters, giants, outlaws and magicians towards whom no one had any legal obligations. He stated that to kill someone who was Utgard was no less moral than killing a wild animal. 

With Grønbech’s translations into other languages, he gained popularity in America and among Nazi occultists in Germany. The talks that he gave in Denmark during Nazi occupation were very well attended. His ideas reinforced the dehumanization of the rest of the world, keeping only the “folk” as the sacred in-group. Despite having fallen away in the Germanic Polytheist movements in other countries, the concept of Innangard has remained fairly strong in America, especially among folkish groups. 

These ideas entered into mainstream Heathenry through Theodism, a more conservative branch of Anglo-Saxon Polytheism which emphasizes hierarchical power structures as an important part of their religion. In his book We Are Our Deeds, Eric Wodening bases his model for a society with a strict in-group and out-group on Kirsten Hastrup’s widely criticized model of binary-tripartite Norse cosmology, which she developed by analyzing the layout of Icelandic farmsteads. Scholars of theology have since pointed out the extremely reductive nature of this view of Norse cosmology. In seeking to understand the structure of the cosmos, Hastrup and Wodening ended up ignoring the complexity inherent to it. 

We Are Our Deeds uses Wodening's personal belief that we should base our ethics on ancient ethics as a foundational premise, and fails to adequately support it. The chapter on Innangard is riddled with circular logic, uncited facts, and non sequiturs. Wodening presents an “elder heathen” that cannot be located in any one time or place and uses contradictory information from English, Icelandic, and Continental sources to paint a picture of a society that never was. The fact that this book still influences so many illustrates a failure of modern Heathenry to create a credible and logical theology. 

Tackling the Arguments

“These beings are outsiders because they are the enemies of the gods.”  

In my kindred, I am the person in charge of organizing our monthly educational meeting. In February of 2024, I presented a short talk and discussion titled “What Even is a God?”, in which we examined the dividing line between a powerful being and a god. The definition of godhood that came out of that talk was: “A being, external to the mind, with immense power and agency, who engages in reciprocity with human beings.” By this definition Thor, Frigg, and Odin are gods, but so too are Jormungandr and Fenrir, based on the many heathen practitioners worldwide who engage in the gifting cycle with them. 

In May 2025, I sent out a survey across several Heathen forums, including the Northeast Heathen Community Facebook page, which asked about people's spiritual experiences with Jormungandr and Fenrir. The goal was to gather data on whether or not people were having positive or negative experiences with these beings.

Respondents were asked whether or not they had ever had a spiritual experience involving Jormungandr or Fenrir, and then to rate the positivity/negativity on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the most positive. They were also given space to write about their experiences. In total, there were 48 respondents. There were 22 people who reported an experience with Jormungandr and 38 who reported one with Fenrir. 

Of those who reported experience with Jormungandr, the average positivity score was 4.32 with a median score of 5. The word that kept appearing in people’s written answers was “Protector,” though some did describe him as “vast” or “alien,” and at least one person reported that they had trouble connecting with him because his presence was “too large to relate to.” The only negative written responses were from people who reported having no personal experience with Jormungandr. 

Of those who reported a spiritual experience with Fenrir, the average score was 4.55 with a median score of 5. In the writing portion, the most common phrase used to describe him was “Breaker of Chains.” People reported help with the positive channeling of anger, protection from abuse, and the unravelling of negative emotional binds. Some reported that Fenrir was “intense,” but many others also found him comforting.    

Obviously no one is arguing that NET must actively honor all gods, but where we draw the line is important. NET’s website lists the event as a place to “practice the religious traditions of Northern Europe and Scandinavia, centered around the deities collectively known in English as the Ǽsir and the Vanir.” Already we have an issue, because there were definitely altars to Jotnár in the Vestead at NET 2024. Ran had her own Ve, so we can see that being Jotnar does not exclude a being from godhood in the eyes of the planning committee. So, despite what their website says, we can see that the actual defining line they are using is “a Germanic god.” I see nothing wrong with this being the line for a group of Germanic Heathens. The problem for them becomes that Fenrir, Jormungandr, and others meet that definition for inclusion. 

When I asked David Carron to tell me how he defines our gods, he told me that the lore gives us a list. By this, he has fallen into the trap of applying an infallible quality to our sources. Even if the Poetic or Prose Eddas provided a concrete list of gods, and they definitely don’t, they would be limited by the flawed knowledge and biases of their writers. We are able to come to our own conclusions based on our understanding of the world and the gods, and it would be a mistake to limit ourselves by relying solely on the worth judgments of a people who lack the knowledge of 1000 years of history that is present in our modern worldview. 

So perhaps Fenrir remains outside of our practice because he is an “enemy of the gods.” Putting aside the fact that he is a god, this argument relies almost entirely on mythic infallibility. To those that argue this, Fenrir is an enemy because the stories about him showcase the destruction he causes. The problem is that this line of argumentation takes Ragnarok literally. Ragnarok did not happen, as evidenced by the fact that the gods are still there, and even if we believe that it is fated to literally happen, then we must discard any notion of the free will of humans and gods. To believe in our free will, we must believe that the future is ever changing, and so are the stories of our gods. 

If we eliminate a literal interpretation of myth as the reason behind the belief that these beings are “enemies,” then what we are left with is feelings or special knowledge. I am not alone in chastising anyone who claims special knowledge or prophethood. Any one of us can form relationships with our gods, ancestors, and wights through prayer and meditation, and a claim of a special relationship is hubris, to say the least. However, feelings are valid reasons to believe something and they are the essence of how religion is formed in the first place. Through prayer, many have come to the conclusion that these Outsiders are enemies of the gods, but many have also come to the opposite conclusion. In choosing a side here, I have put more weight on the gnoses of those heathens who have spent time building relationships with these beings than on the beliefs of those who have avoided them.

Under rigorous examination of the realities of modern practice, the idea that Jormungandr, Fenrir, or even Jotnar in general are the enemies of the gods breaks down from a fact into an assumption, and one that has many challenges laid against it.  

“The gods have an Innangard and Utangard, and these beings are Utangard.” 

When we imagine the gods, we see beings much like ourselves. Our minds conjure images of men and women of various appearances sitting in finely-decked halls of stone and wood; eating, drinking, and engaging in all the activities that we associate with life. However, this is a product of our imaginations and not likely indicative of reality. The nature of the gods has been pondered over by polytheist philosophers for millennia, but nearly all have come to the conclusion that their existence must be vastly different from our own. I believe that the gods transcend the limits of material existence. The ways they can communicate and affect the material world occur by means beyond the ability of all known material beings. 

We have seen how the concept of Innangard came into Heathenry through Theodism, and the problems with it are numerous. Even if we ignore its anachronistic relationship to history, we are still left with a concept that fits cleanly into a fascistic worldview of in-groups and out-groups. This type of thinking inevitably leads to the partial or full dehumanization of the designated out-group, the prospect of which should be revolting to any inclusive heathen. There is a reason that Nazi occultists and folkish heathens place so much value in Innangard, and while not everything they do needs to be thrown out as the fruit of the poisoned tree, this one relates directly to the beliefs they have that we find most disgusting. Theodism itself, though not racist in nature, fulfills Umberto Eco’s first several properties of fascism: “cult of tradition,” “rejection of modernism,” “cult of action for action’s sake,” and “fear of difference.”

 Innangard and Utangard, as societal concepts, should not be held as sacred to Inclusive Heathens. While we may use "Heathen" to define a set of commonly-held beliefs, "inclusive" directly suggests a worldview of an interconnected worldwide human community that stands in stark contrast to such a binary, “us vs. them” framework.

Unless we consider the gods to be less enlightened than human beings, we should not apply these concepts to their existence either. To think that we have moved on from social systems that concentrate power into the hands of the few, while believing that the gods relate to each other through such backwards social systems, is a failure of imagination. The gods were shown in myth as kings and warriors because that was the ideal of the writers, not because it represented literal truth. If we know that kings and exclusive power structures are wrong, why would the gods know any less? If they do operate through such backwards means, why are they worthy of worship? 

“These beings are destructive forces and should be avoided.”

In 1000 CE, the way that Northern Europeans interacted with the natural world was vastly different from how we experience our environment. Despite the trading that went on between communities, most localities in feudal Europe had to be self-sufficient in terms of food and vital supplies. People everywhere were at the mercy of natural forces. Nature was dangerous and chaotic, especially for a people so reliant on small scale agriculture and the bounties of the sea. 

Jotnar in Norse myth often represent the chaotic natural forces of the world. Skadi is the bitterness of winter, Surtr is the volcanic fire, Aegir is the depths of the ocean, and Ran claims those poor sailors who fall victim to said ocean. However, each of these destructive natural forces has an upside. The winter is necessary for many plants in order for them to flower and reproduce. The volcano destroys, but leaves behind fertile land and resources. The ocean swells and washes away, but is also the source of most life in this world. Destruction is a necessary part of the natural order. 

If we look at Jormungandr in myth, he does not typically show up as a destructive force. The Midgard Serpent encircles the world, creating a protective boundary. Midgard is destroyed during Ragnarok not when Jormungandr wills it, but rather as an effect of his death. Thor’s single-minded quest to overcome the serpent causes him to fail in his ultimate duty: to protect humanity. In fact, the Voluspá refers to Thor striking against the “protector of Midgard,” which is paradoxically also a title Thor holds. Where Thor protects the people, Jormungandr seems to protect the land, and so gives vital service to humanity by proxy. 

We do not know for sure what ancient heathens thought of Jormungandr or Surtr or Fenrir or Utgarda-Loki because all we have are stories written down by Christian writers. It’s possible that they saw them as wholly destructive, dangerous, or evil, but that should hardly matter to a modern practitioner. We can look to more than stories and myth; to the complicated natural world, our nuanced modern worldview, and the experiences of heathens across the globe; to see the positive impact of many “monsters” on our Midgard. 

“The worship of these beings at NET is frith-breaking”

Some on the planning committee have argued that because NET is happening within a “circle of frith”, and all people are connected by wyrd, that the actions of one person could negatively affect the spiritual health of everyone else present. This spiritual miasma theory posits that one person offering to outsiders or calling their name in symbel within the “Innangard” of NET taints the worth and luck of all. This is a claim with no demonstrable evidence to back it up and would fall under what ancient polytheist philosophers called superstitio. 

Superstition, the modern English word, was to the ancients an exaggerated belief or practice that resulted in harm to one’s self or others. They often ridiculed the type of person who was so afraid of the god’s wrath that he could take no meaningful actions as superstitious. This is an extreme example, but it illustrates well that superstition is religious belief that negatively affects us or the people around us. The exclusion of outsider worship at NET is superstition. 

Although it was not done out of a direct fear of the gods, this fear of tainted luck has caused a reaction that has and will harm many heathens in our community. Following this belief to its inevitable conclusion should lead anyone who holds it to cut themselves off from society entirely, since the words and deeds of others can apparently damage their luck by proximity. The planning committee should think deeply about which they are more worried about harming; the actual people in their community, or an ever shifting concept of their wyrd. The actions of those who are fighting for the inclusion of “Outsiders” are done out of love and a passion for the health of their community. They are building frith, not breaking it.

Why does this matter?

When I first attended NET in 2022, I didn’t know a single person who ran the event. I was bunking with several other members of my kindred whose judgment I trusted (and still do), but beyond a written commitment to inclusion, I had no idea of the beliefs or practices maintained by the leaders of the event. As inclusive spaces went, things seemed pretty good. The several people I know involved with planning the event are vehemently anti-racist and welcoming to people of all skin colors, sexes, genders, sexual orientations, and abilities, so the revelation that they were not inclusive of this set of widely held beliefs came as a shock. It seemed to me to be cognitive dissonance that could create a person so loving of all their fellow humans yet so hateful to some gods. 

The worship and acceptance of “Outsiders” is a steadily growing trend in Heathenry. Many of the people involved already exist on the margins of society due to prejudice and hate. The reciprocity they have with these gods has helped many to survive the systemic injustices in our world. The consequence of the committee’s decision is that these people are now asked to cut off a portion of themselves at the gate. A few members of the planning committee have stated that even privately praying to these beings while at the event would negatively affect the luck of the community, and so also consider practice of this type to be frith-breaking. It seems not even staying in the closet is good enough for some. 

It is ironic that David Carron’s argument that we don’t have orthodoxy or heresy in Heathenry is one of the things that brought the problems with NET to the forefront, because that is what they are creating with this decision. However, I believe that a religious organization having an orthodoxy isn’t necessarily a bad thing. The word has left a bad taste in many pagan mouths because of the many violent ways the Catholic Church has dealt with heresy throughout history, and so we forget that there are other, more constructive ways to handle it. 

Defining the beliefs of a religious organization is an essential part of its creation. This does not mean that every possible belief must be defined or accounted for, but there must be some shared beliefs that hold the group together. My kindred is a pluralist heathen group; we have Norse and Anglo-Saxon and undefined heathens worshiping together and learning from each other, but we all agree that inclusion is the way and that the gods don’t care about your ancestry. That is an orthodox belief: it is required for membership. If someone came to us holding folkish beliefs, we might attempt to show them the error of their ways, but they would ultimately be expelled if they failed to change. To us, folkish heathens are heretics. 

Having a heresy is not something a religion should be ashamed of, nor does it mean that the religious group itself is intolerant. A heresy is simply a religious disagreement that demands one of four responses from religious authorities; integration, compromise, suppression, or schism. In integration, the heresy becomes the new norm, like how Loki worship went from being frowned upon to the new community standard. Schism would be like our split from folkish heathens, which we work hard to keep total. Suppression is using coercion or force to prevent the spread of heresy. Lastly, compromise is what was proposed in the survey sent out to determine interest from the community; that a separate area be set aside at the event for the worship of these “Outsiders.”

The hegemonic belief among the leaders of NET that “Outsider” worship would be harmful to the community necessarily creates a heresy. Currently, their response to it is suppression, but continued suppression will lead to a schism in the community. It is important for the public to understand the beliefs that underlie this event before they mistakenly enter a space where they are not welcome. Some have argued that NET is not banning the belief, only the practice, and is therefore orthopraxy, not orthodoxy. However, since we cannot demonstrate the harm that such a practice would cause, the banning is based entirely on religious belief and constitutes an orthodoxy. 

What to do?

The first problem faced by anyone who wants to change this decision is that Northeast Thing is not a democratic organization, but rather an event run by volunteers. New members of the committee are chosen by the current members because there is no organization behind the event itself. If you have a problem with the way Trothmoot 2025 is run, you can join the Troth and vote in new board members in the next year’s election or even run for the position yourself. Because NET has no voting members besides the volunteer committee, there is no way for a typical community member to affect the organization. 

In his conversation with me, David Carron expressed a wish that NET and the Northeast Heathen Community would one day blossom into a full religious organization. If that is his aspiration, then the first step is democracy. A greater voting membership should be formed to guide the actions of the planning committee. Perhaps a year’s membership is included with the admission payment to NET with a small fee for those who can’t attend that year. Elections would need to be held to fill all positions of authority and for the passing of bylaws and changes to them. It’s not a small task, but it’s one that should be taken if NET wants to be taken seriously in this community. 

Volunteering your time for the community is an honorable thing, and if this were just a camp-out it would be all that was necessary. Perhaps some don’t want NET to become more than an event, but by creating an orthodoxy of beliefs, they are inevitably acting like a religious organization. Truthfully, by allowing official organized worship at all, they have created an NET brand of Heathenry, and should take responsibility for it. Right now, they seem more content to pretend the problem doesn’t exist in the hopes that it will dissolve into the aether. 

Some on the committee have expressed that those who don’t like their decisions should start their own event, which is more than a little insulting. It first betrays the underlying belief that the event belongs to the people who made it, and thus the community has no ownership over it. Thus NET is less of a “Thing” and more of a fiefdom, since a Thing was inherently democratic in nature. So many people in no position of authority over NET have contributed to its success by leading rituals, organizing Ves, giving workshops, caring for children, and generally contributing to the community. Unfortunately, their contribution confers no stake in the event. 

Perhaps it falls to us to do what they have suggested we do and make our own event. Personally, my goal with that would not be to pull people away from NET or even to hurt them at all, but create a space where every ethical, inclusive Heathen would be welcome. I would schedule it at a different time of year. It would be run by an organization with membership and voting rights. This membership could work to determine the goals and structure of this new conference. It would have to start small, but small things can be very useful and are the only way to build big things. 

Inclusion is not easy. It takes careful planning, introspection, group coordination, and constant fiddling with the parts that aren’t working quite right. In making the decisions they have, the planning committee has shown neither the care nor temperament necessary for purposeful inclusion. Criticism, from within or without, has been consistently met with defensive actions and vitriol instead of intellectual humility or self-reflection. I worry for the future of this event and of the Northeast Heathen Community if we cannot find ways to fix these issues and to create a logical, consistent, and inclusive theology worthy of all heathens. 

Published July 30, 2025

Sources

Crawford, Jackson, “Innangard and Utangard: Two Non-Words in Old Norse “, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsIZneUeZQw, accessed 7/28/2025

Ocean Keltoi, “The Literal Worst Way to Interpret Norse Myth | Mythic Literalism”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMk59p1ffQE&t=1468s , accessed 7/28/25

Grönbech, Vilhelm, The Culture of the Teutons: Volume 1, trans. W. Worster, Oxford University Press, 1931 https://ia801800.us.archive.org/16/items/VilhelmGrnbechCultureOfTheTeutons/Vilhelm%20Gr%C3%B6nbech%20-%20Culture%20of%20the%20Teutons.pdf

Faulkes, Anthony. Saga-Book 22 (1986): 121–26. https://www.jstor.org/stable/48612774 

Wódening, Eric, We are Our Deeds, 2nd Ed., White Marsh Press, 2011

Seigfried, Karl E, “Innangard and Utangard: Problematic Roots of Heathen Dualism “, The Norse Mythology Blog, 2020, accessed 7/28/25, https://www.norsemyth.org/2020/09/innangard-and-utangard-problematic.html

Richard Blackett and Denise Vast, “Innangard: Folkish-enabling concepts in inclusive Heathenry”, Germanic and Slavic Paganisms: Security Threats and Resiliency, Bloomsbury Publishing, 2024

Cicero, M. Tullius, De Natura Deorum, trans. P.G. Walsh, Oxford University Press, 2001

The Elder Edda: A Book of Viking Lore, trans. A. Orchard, Penguin Classics, 2011